Division The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider - ASA 240 - The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report - April 2006 - The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report | Zoe
ASA 240 - The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report - April 2006
The Auditor's Responsibility to ConsiderThe Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report
Start here
Get a plain-English read of The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in ASA 240 - The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report - April 2006.
The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report
Application
1 This Auditing Standard applies to:
(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with Part 2M.3 of the Corporations Act 2001; and
(b) an audit of a financial report for any other purpose.
2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other financial information.
Operative Date
3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 July 2006.
Introduction
4 The purpose of this Auditing Standard is to establish mandatory requirements and to provide explanatory guidance on the auditor’s responsibility to consider fraud in an audit of a financial report[1] and expand on how the standards and guidance in ASA 315 Understanding the Entity and its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement, and ASA 330 The Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks, are to be applied in relation to the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. The mandatory requirements and explanatory guidance in this Auditing Standard are intended to be integrated into the overall audit process.
5 This Auditing Standard:
Distinguishes fraud from error and describes the two types of fraud that are relevant to the auditor, that is, misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets and misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting.
Describes the respective responsibilities of those charged with governance and the management of the entity for the prevention and detection of fraud.
Describes the inherent limitations of an audit in the context of fraud, and sets out the responsibilities of the auditor for detecting material misstatements due to fraud.
Under this Auditing Standard:
The auditor needs to maintain an attitude of professional scepticism recognising the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist, notwithstanding the auditor’s past experience with the entity about the honesty and integrity of management and those charged with governance.
The members of the engagement team need to discuss the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud. Under this Auditing Standard the engagement partner needs to consider which matters are to be communicated to members of the engagement team not involved in the discussion.
The auditor needs to:
(i) perform procedures to obtain information that is used to identify the risks of material misstatement due to fraud;
(ii) identify and assess the risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and the assertion level; and for those assessed risks that could result in a material misstatement due to fraud, evaluate the design of the entity’s related controls, including relevant control activities, and to determine whether they have been implemented;
(iii) determine overall responses to address the risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and consider the assignment and supervision of personnel; consider the accounting policies used by the entity and incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures to be performed;
(iv) design and perform audit procedures to respond to the risk of management override of controls;
(v) determine responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud;
(vi) consider whether an identified misstatement may be indicative of fraud;
(vii) obtain written representations from management relating to fraud; and
(viii) communicate with management and those charged with governance.
This Auditing Standard:
Provides guidance on communications with regulatory and enforcement authorities.
Provides guidance if, as a result of a misstatement resulting from fraud or suspected fraud, the auditor encounters exceptional circumstances that bring into question the auditor’s ability to continue performing the audit.
Establishes documentation requirements.
6 In planning and performing the audit to reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level, the auditor shall consider the risks of material misstatements in the financial report due to fraud.
Characteristics of Fraud
7 Misstatements in the financial report can arise from fraud or error. The distinguishing factor between fraud and error is whether the underlying action that results in the misstatement of the financial report is intentional or unintentional.
8 The term “error” refers to an unintentional misstatement in the financial report, including the omission of an amount or a disclosure, such as the following:
A mistake in gathering or processing data from which the financial report is prepared.
An incorrect accounting estimate arising from oversight or misinterpretation of facts.
A mistake in the application of accounting principles relating to measurement, recognition, classification, presentation or disclosure.
9 The term “fraud” refers to an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage. Although fraud is a broad legal concept, for the purposes of this Auditing Standard, the auditor is concerned with fraud that causes a material misstatement in the financial report. Auditors do not make legal determinations of whether fraud has actually occurred. Fraud involving one or more members of management or those charged with governance is referred to as “management fraud;” fraud involving only employees of the entity is referred to as “employee fraud.” In either case, there may be collusion within the entity or with third parties outside of the entity.
10 Two types of intentional misstatements are relevant to the auditor, that is, misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting and misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets.
11 Fraudulent financial reporting involves intentional misstatements including omissions of amounts or disclosures in the financial report to deceive financial report users. Fraudulent financial reporting may be accomplished by the following:
Manipulation, falsification (including forgery), or alteration of accounting records or supporting documentation from which the financial report is prepared.
Misrepresentation in, or intentional omission from, the financial report of events, transactions or other significant information.
Intentional misapplication of accounting principles relating to amounts, classification, manner of presentation, or disclosure.
12 Fraudulent financial reporting often involves management override of controls that otherwise may appear to be operating effectively. Fraud can be committed by management overriding controls using such techniques as:
Recording fictitious journal entries, particularly close to the end of an accounting period, to manipulate operating results or achieve other objectives.
Inappropriately adjusting assumptions and changing judgements used to estimate account balances.
Omitting, advancing or delaying recognition in the financial report of events and transactions that have occurred during the reporting period.
Concealing, or not disclosing, facts that could affect the amounts recorded in the financial report.
Engaging in complex transactions that are structured to misrepresent the financial position or financial performance of the entity.
Altering records and terms related to significant and unusual transactions.
13 Fraudulent financial reporting can be caused by the efforts of management to manage earnings in order to deceive financial report users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability. Such earnings management may start out with small actions or inappropriate adjustment of assumptions and changes in judgements by management. Pressures and incentives may lead these actions to increase to the extent that they result in fraudulent financial reporting. Such a situation could occur when, due to pressures to meet market expectations or a desire to maximise compensation based on performance, management intentionally takes positions that lead to fraudulent financial reporting by materially misstating the financial report. In some other entities, management may be motivated to reduce earnings by a material amount to minimise tax or to inflate earnings to secure bank financing.
14 Misappropriation of assets involves the theft of an entity’s assets and is often perpetrated by employees in relatively small and immaterial amounts. However, it can also involve management who are usually more able to disguise or conceal misappropriations in ways that are difficult to detect. Misappropriation of assets can be accomplished in a variety of ways including:
Embezzling receipts (for example, misappropriating collections on accounts receivable or diverting receipts in respect of written-off accounts to personal bank accounts).
Stealing physical assets or intellectual property (for example, stealing inventory for personal use or for sale, stealing scrap for resale, colluding with a competitor by disclosing technological data in return for payment).
Causing an entity to pay for goods and services not received (for example, payments to fictitious vendors, kickbacks paid by vendors to the entity’s purchasing agents in return for inflating prices, payments to fictitious employees).
Using an entity’s assets for personal use (for example, using the entity’s assets as collateral for a personal loan or a loan to a related party).
Misappropriation of assets is often accompanied by false or misleading records or documents in order to conceal the fact that the assets are missing or have been pledged without proper authorisation.
15 Fraud involves incentive or pressure to commit fraud, a perceived opportunity to do so and some rationalisation of the act. Individuals may have an incentive to misappropriate assets for example, because the individuals are living beyond their means. Fraudulent financial reporting may be committed because management is under pressure, from sources outside or inside the entity, to achieve an expected (and perhaps unrealistic) earnings target – particularly since the consequences to management for failing to meet financial goals can be significant. A perceived opportunity for fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets may exist when an individual believes internal control can be overridden, for example, because the individual is in a position of trust or has knowledge of specific weaknesses in internal control. Individuals may be able to rationalise committing a fraudulent act. Some individuals possess an attitude, character or set of ethical values that allow them knowingly and intentionally to commit a dishonest act. However, even otherwise honest individuals can commit fraud in an environment that imposes sufficient pressure on them.
Responsibilities of Those Charged With Governance and of Management
16 The primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with both those charged with governance of the entity and with management. The respective responsibilities of those charged with governance and of management may vary by entity. In some entities, the governance structure may be more informal as those charged with governance may be the same individuals as management of the entity.
17 It is important that management, with the oversight of those charged with governance, places a strong emphasis on fraud prevention, which may reduce opportunities for fraud to take place, and fraud deterrence, which could persuade individuals not to commit fraud because of the likelihood of detection and punishment. This involves a culture of honesty and ethical behaviour. Such a culture, based on a strong set of core values, is communicated and demonstrated by management and by those charged with governance and provides the foundation for employees as to how the entity conducts its business. Creating a culture of honesty and ethical behaviour includes setting the proper tone; creating a positive workplace environment; hiring, training and promoting appropriate employees; requiring periodic confirmation by employees of their responsibilities and taking appropriate action in response to actual, suspected or alleged fraud.
18 It is the responsibility of those charged with governance of the entity to ensure, through oversight of management, that the entity establishes and maintains internal control to provide reasonable assurance with regard to reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Active oversight by those charged with governance can help reinforce management’s commitment to create a culture of honesty and ethical behaviour. In exercising oversight responsibility, those charged with governance consider the potential for management override of controls or other inappropriate influence over the financial reporting process, such as efforts by management to manage earnings in order to influence the perceptions of analysts as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
19 It is the responsibility of management, with oversight from those charged with governance, to establish a control environment and maintain policies and procedures to assist in achieving the objective of ensuring, as far as possible, the orderly and efficient conduct of the entity’s business. This responsibility includes establishing and maintaining controls pertaining to the entity’s objective of preparing a financial report that gives a true and fair view (or is presented fairly in all material respects) in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and managing risks that may give rise to material misstatements in that financial report. Such controls reduce but do not eliminate the risks of misstatement. In determining which controls to implement to prevent and detect fraud, management considers the risks that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud. As part of this consideration, management may conclude that it is not cost effective to implement and maintain a particular control in relation to the reduction in the risks of material misstatement due to fraud to be achieved.
Inherent Limitations of an Audit in the Context of Fraud
20 As described in ASA 200 Objective and General Principles Governing an Audit of a Financial Report, the objective of an audit of a financial report is to enable the auditor to express an opinion whether the financial report is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework. Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements of the financial report will not be detected, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with Auditing Standards.
21 The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from error because fraud may involve sophisticated and carefully organised schemes designed to conceal it, such as forgery, deliberate failure to record transactions, or intentional misrepresentations being made to the auditor. Such attempts at concealment may be even more difficult to detect when accompanied by collusion. Collusion may cause the auditor to believe that audit evidence is persuasive when it is, in fact, false. The auditor’s ability to detect a fraud depends on factors such as the skill of the perpetrator, the frequency and extent of manipulation, the degree of collusion involved, the relative size of individual amounts manipulated, and the seniority of those individuals involved. While the auditor may be able to identify potential opportunities for fraud to be perpetrated, it is difficult for the auditor to determine whether misstatements in judgement areas such as accounting estimates are caused by fraud or error.
22 Furthermore, the risk of the auditor not detecting a material misstatement resulting from management fraud is greater than for employee fraud, because management is frequently in a position to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records and present fraudulent financial information. Certain levels of management may be in a position to override control procedures designed to prevent similar frauds by other employees, for example, by directing subordinates to record transactions incorrectly or to conceal them. Given its position of authority within an entity, management has the ability to either direct employees to do something or solicit their help to assist in carrying out a fraud, with or without the employees’ knowledge.
23 The subsequent discovery of a material misstatement of the financial report resulting from fraud does not, in and of itself, indicate a failure to comply with Auditing Standards. This is particularly the case for certain kinds of intentional misstatements, since audit procedures may be ineffective for detecting an intentional misstatement that is concealed through collusion between or among one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, or that involves falsified documentation. Whether the auditor has performed an audit in accordance with Auditing Standards is determined by the audit procedures performed in the circumstances, the sufficiency and appropriateness of the audit evidence obtained as a result thereof and the suitability of the auditor’s report based on an evaluation of that evidence.
Responsibilities of the Auditor for Detecting Material Misstatement Due to Fraud
24 Under ASA 200, an auditor conducting an audit in accordance with Auditing Standards needs to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial report taken as a whole is free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. An auditor cannot obtain absolute assurance that material misstatements in the financial report will be detected because of such factors as the use of judgement, the use of testing, the inherent limitations of internal control and the fact that much of the audit evidence available to the auditor is persuasive rather than conclusive in nature.
25 When obtaining reasonable assurance, an auditor:
in accordance with paragraph 27 of this Auditing Standard, is required to maintain an attitude of professional scepticism throughout the audit;
under paragraph 80 of this Auditing Standard, needs to consider the potential for management override of controls; and
ordinarily recognises the fact that audit procedures that are effective for detecting error may not be appropriate in the context of an identified risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
The remainder of this Auditing Standard provides additional guidance on considering the risks of fraud in an audit and designing procedures to detect material misstatements due to fraud.
Professional Scepticism
26 Under ASA 200, the auditor needs to plan and perform an audit with an attitude of professional scepticism recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the financial report to be materially misstated. Due to the characteristics of fraud, the auditor’s attitude of professional scepticism is particularly important when considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Professional scepticism is an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical assessment of audit evidence. Professional scepticism requires an ongoing questioning of whether the information and audit evidence obtained suggests that a material misstatement due to fraud may exist.
27 The auditor shall maintain an attitude of professional scepticism throughout the audit, recognising the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist, notwithstanding the auditor’s past experience with the entity about the honesty and integrity of management and those charged with governance.
28 As discussed in ASA 315, the auditor’s previous experience with the entity contributes to an understanding of the entity. However, although the auditor cannot be expected to fully disregard past experience with the entity about the honesty and integrity of management and those charged with governance, the maintenance of an attitude of professional scepticism is important because there may have been changes in circumstances. When making enquiries and performing other audit procedures, the auditor exercises professional scepticism and is not satisfied with less-than-persuasive audit evidence based on a belief that management and those charged with governance are honest and have integrity. With respect to those charged with governance, maintaining an attitude of professional scepticism means that the auditor carefully considers the reasonableness of responses to enquiries of those charged with governance, and other information obtained from them, in light of all other evidence obtained during the audit.
29 An audit performed in accordance with Auditing Standards rarely involves the authentication of documents, nor is the auditor trained as or expected to be an expert in such authentication. Furthermore, an auditor may not discover the existence of a modification to the terms contained in a document, for example through a side agreement that management or a third party has not disclosed to the auditor. During the audit, the auditor ordinarily considers the reliability of the information to be used as audit evidence including consideration of controls over its preparation and maintenance where relevant. Unless the auditor has reason to believe the contrary, the auditor ordinarily accepts records and documents as genuine. However, if conditions identified during the audit cause the auditor to believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document have been modified, the auditor ordinarily investigates further, for example confirming directly with the third party or considering using the work of an expert to assess the document’s authenticity.
Discussion Among the Engagement Team
30 Members of the engagement team shall discuss the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud.
31 In accordance with ASA 315, members of the engagement team are required to discuss the susceptibility of the entity to material misstatement of the financial report. Under paragraph 30 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to place particular emphasis, within the discussion, on the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud. The discussion ordinarily includes the engagement partner who uses professional judgement, and uses prior experience with the entity and knowledge of current developments to determine which other members of the engagement team are included in the discussion. Ordinarily, the discussion involves the key members of the engagement team. The discussion provides an opportunity for more experienced engagement team members to share their insights about how and where the financial report may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud.
32 The engagement partner shall consider which matters are to be communicated to members of the engagement team not involved in the discussion.
33 All of the members of the engagement team do not necessarily need to be informed of all of the decisions reached in the discussion. For example, a member of the engagement team involved in the audit of a component of the entity may not need to know the decisions reached regarding another component of the entity.
34 The discussion occurs with a questioning mind setting aside any beliefs that the engagement team members may have that management and those charged with governance are honest and have integrity. The discussion ordinarily includes:
An exchange of ideas among engagement team members about how and where they believe the entity’s financial report may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud, how management could perpetrate and conceal fraudulent financial reporting, and how assets of the entity could be misappropriated.
A consideration of circumstances that might be indicative of earnings management and the practices that might be followed by management to manage earnings that could lead to fraudulent financial reporting.
A consideration of the known external and internal factors affecting the entity that may create an incentive or pressure for management or others to commit fraud, provide the opportunity for fraud to be perpetrated, and indicate a culture or environment that enables management or others to rationalise committing fraud.
A consideration of management’s involvement in overseeing employees with access to cash or other assets susceptible to misappropriation.
A consideration of any unusual or unexplained changes in behaviour or lifestyle of management or employees which have come to the attention of the engagement team.
An emphasis on the importance of maintaining a proper state of mind throughout the audit regarding the potential for material misstatement due to fraud.
A consideration of the types of circumstances that, if encountered, might indicate the possibility of fraud.
A consideration of how an element of unpredictability will be incorporated into the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures to be performed.
A consideration of the audit procedures that might be selected to respond to the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatements due to fraud and whether certain types of audit procedures are more effective than others.
A consideration of any allegations of fraud that have come to the auditor’s attention.
A consideration of the risk of management override of controls.
35 Discussing the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud is an important part of the audit. It enables the auditor to consider an appropriate response to the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud and to determine which members of the engagement team will conduct certain audit procedures. It also permits the auditor to determine how the results of audit procedures will be shared among the engagement team and how to deal with any allegations of fraud that may come to the auditor’s attention. Many small audits are carried out entirely by the engagement partner (who may be a sole practitioner). In such situations, under paragraph 6 of this Auditing Standard the engagement partner, having personally conducted the planning of the audit, needs to consider the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud.
36 It is important that after the initial discussion while planning the audit, and also at intervals throughout the audit, engagement team members continue to communicate and share information obtained that may affect the assessment of risks of material misstatement due to fraud or the audit procedures performed to address these risks. For example, for some entities it may be appropriate to update the discussion when reviewing the entity’s interim financial information.
Risk Assessment Procedures
37 Under ASA 315, to obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor needs to perform risk assessment procedures. Ordinarily, as part of this work the auditor performs the following procedures to obtain information that is used to identify the risks of material misstatement due to fraud:
Makes enquiries of management, of those charged with governance, and of others within the entity as appropriate and obtains an understanding of how those charged with governance exercise oversight of management’s processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks.
Considers whether one or more fraud risk factors are present.
Considers any unusual or unexpected relationships that have been identified in performing analytical procedures.
Considers other information that may be helpful in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
Enquiries and Obtaining an Understanding of Oversight Exercised by Those Charged With Governance
38 When obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor shall make enquiries of management regarding:
(a) management’s assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated due to fraud;
(b) management’s process for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity, including any specific risks of fraud that management has identified or account balances, classes of transactions or disclosures for which a risk of fraud is likely to exist;
(c) management’s communication, if any, to those charged with governance regarding its processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity; and
(d) management’s communication, if any, to employees regarding its views on business practices and ethical behaviour.
39 As management is responsible for the entity’s internal control and for the preparation of the financial report, it is appropriate for the auditor to make enquiries of management regarding management’s own assessment of the risk of fraud and the controls in place to prevent and detect it. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment of such risk and controls vary from entity to entity. In some entities, management may make detailed assessments on an annual basis or as part of continuous monitoring. In other entities, management’s assessment may be less formal and less frequent. In some entities, particularly smaller entities, the focus of the assessment may be on the risks of employee fraud or misappropriation of assets. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment are relevant to the auditor’s understanding of the entity’s control environment. For example, the fact that management has not made an assessment of the risk of fraud may in some circumstances be indicative of the lack of importance that management places on internal control.
40 In a small owner managed entity, the owner-manager may be able to exercise more effective oversight than in a larger entity, thereby compensating for the generally more limited opportunities for segregation of duties. On the other hand, the owner-manager may be more able to override controls because of the informal system of internal control. This is ordinarily taken into account by the auditor when identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
41 When making enquiries as part of obtaining an understanding of management’s process for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity, under paragraph 38 of this Auditing Standard the auditor needs to enquire about the process of responding to internal or external allegations of fraud affecting the entity. For entities with multiple locations, the auditor ordinarily enquires about the nature and extent of monitoring of operating locations or business segments and whether there are particular operating locations or business segments for which a risk of fraud may be more likely to exist.
42 The auditor shall make enquiries of management, internal audit, and others within the entity as appropriate, to determine whether they have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity.
43 Although the auditor’s enquiries of management may provide useful information concerning the risks of material misstatements in the financial report resulting from employee fraud, such enquiries are unlikely to provide useful information regarding the risks of material misstatement in the financial report resulting from management fraud. Making enquiries of others within the entity, in addition to management, may be useful in providing the auditor with a perspective that is different from management and those responsible for the financial reporting process. Such enquiries may provide individuals with an opportunity to convey information to the auditor that may not otherwise be communicated. The auditor uses professional judgement in determining those others within the entity to whom enquiries are directed and the extent of such enquiries. In making this determination the auditor ordinarily considers whether others within the entity may be able to provide information that will be helpful to the auditor in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
44 In accordance with paragraph 42 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor is required to make enquiries of internal audit personnel, for those entities that have an internal audit function. The enquiries address the views of the internal auditors regarding the risks of fraud, whether during the year the internal auditors have performed any procedures to detect fraud, whether management has satisfactorily responded to any findings resulting from these procedures, and whether the internal auditors have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud.
45 Examples of others within the entity to whom the auditor may direct enquiries about the existence or suspicion of fraud include:
Operating personnel not directly involved in the financial reporting process.
Employees with different levels of authority.
Employees involved in initiating, processing or recording complex or unusual transactions and those who supervise or monitor such employees.
In-house legal counsel.
Chief ethics officer or equivalent person.
The person or persons charged with dealing with allegations of fraud.
46 When evaluating management’s responses to enquiries, the auditor maintains an attitude of professional scepticism recognising that management is often in the best position to perpetrate fraud. Therefore, the auditor uses professional judgement in deciding when it is necessary to corroborate responses to enquiries with other information. When responses to enquiries are inconsistent, the auditor ordinarily seeks to resolve the inconsistencies.
47 The auditor shall obtain an understanding of how those charged with governance exercise oversight of management’s processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks.
48 Those charged with governance of an entity have oversight responsibility for systems for monitoring risk, financial control and compliance with the law. Those charged with governance play an active role in oversight of the entity’s assessment of the risks of fraud and of the internal control the entity has established to mitigate specific risks of fraud that the entity has identified. Since the responsibilities of those charged with governance and management may vary by entity, under ASA 260 Communication of Audit Matters with Those Charged with Governance, the auditor needs to understand their respective responsibilities to enable the auditor to obtain an understanding of the oversight exercised by the appropriate individuals.[2] Those charged with governance include management when management performs such functions, such as may be the case in smaller entities.
49 Obtaining an understanding of how those charged with governance exercise oversight of management’s processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity, and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks, may provide insights regarding the susceptibility of the entity to management fraud, the adequacy of such internal control and the competence and integrity of management. The auditor may obtain this understanding by performing procedures such as attending meetings where such discussions take place, reading the minutes from such meetings or by making enquiries of those charged with governance.
50 The auditor shall make enquiries of those charged with governance to determine whether they have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity.
51 Ordinarily, the auditor makes enquiries of those charged with governance in part to corroborate the responses to the enquiries from management. When responses to these enquiries are inconsistent, the auditor ordinarily obtains additional audit evidence to resolve the inconsistencies. Enquiries of those charged with governance may also assist the auditor in identifying risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
Consideration of Fraud Risk Factors
52 When obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor shall consider whether the information obtained indicates that one or more fraud risk factors are present.
53 The fact that fraud is usually concealed can make it very difficult to detect. Nevertheless, when obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor may identify events or conditions that indicate an incentive or pressure to commit fraud or provide an opportunity to commit fraud. Such events or conditions are referred to as “fraud risk factors.” For example:
The need to meet expectations of third parties to obtain additional equity financing may create pressure to commit fraud.
The granting of significant bonuses if unrealistic profit targets are met may create an incentive to commit fraud.
An ineffective control environment may create an opportunity to commit fraud. While fraud risk factors may not necessarily indicate the existence of fraud, they have often been present in circumstances where frauds have occurred. The presence of fraud risk factors may affect the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement.
54 Fraud risk factors cannot easily be ranked in order of importance. The significance of fraud risk factors varies widely. Some of these factors will be present in entities where the specific conditions do not present risks of material misstatement. Accordingly, the auditor exercises professional judgement in determining whether a fraud risk factor is present and whether it is to be considered in assessing the risks of material misstatement of the financial report due to fraud.
55 Examples of fraud risk factors related to fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets are presented in Appendix 1 to this Auditing Standard. These illustrative risk factors are classified based on the three conditions that are generally present when fraud exists: an incentive or pressure to commit fraud; a perceived opportunity to commit fraud; and an ability to rationalise the fraudulent action. Risk factors reflective of an attitude that permits rationalisation of the fraudulent action may not be susceptible to observation by the auditor. Nevertheless, the auditor may become aware of the existence of such information. Although the fraud risk factors described in Appendix 1 cover a broad range of situations that may be faced by auditors, they are only examples and other risk factors may exist. Ordinarily, the auditor also has to be alert for risk factors specific to the entity that are not included in Appendix 1. Not all of the examples in Appendix 1 are relevant in all circumstances, and some may be of greater or lesser significance in entities of different size, with different ownership characteristics, in different industries, or because of other differing characteristics or circumstances.
56 The size, complexity, and ownership characteristics of the entity have a significant influence on the consideration of relevant fraud risk factors. For example, in the case of a large entity, the auditor ordinarily considers factors that generally constrain improper conduct by management, such as the effectiveness of those charged with governance and of the internal audit function and the existence and enforcement of a formal code of conduct. Furthermore, fraud risk factors considered at a business segment operating level may provide different insights than the consideration thereof at an entity-wide level. In the case of a small entity, some or all of these considerations may be inapplicable or less important. For example, a smaller entity may not have a written code of conduct but, instead, may have developed a culture that emphasises the importance of integrity and ethical behaviour through oral communication and by management example. Domination of management by a single individual in a small entity does not generally, in and of itself, indicate a failure by management to display and communicate an appropriate attitude regarding internal control and the financial reporting process. In some entities, the need for management authorisation can compensate for otherwise weak controls and reduce the risk of employee fraud. However, domination of management by a single individual can be a potential weakness since there is an opportunity for management override of controls.
Consideration of Unusual or Unexpected Relationships
57 When performing analytical procedures to obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor shall consider unusual or unexpected relationships that may indicate risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
58 Analytical procedures may be helpful in identifying the existence of unusual transactions or events, and amounts, ratios, and trends that might indicate matters that have financial report and audit implications. In performing analytical procedures the auditor ordinarily develops expectations about plausible relationships that are reasonably expected to exist based on the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control. When a comparison of those expectations with recorded amounts, or with ratios developed from recorded amounts, yields unusual or unexpected relationships, under paragraph 57 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to consider those results in identifying risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Analytical procedures include procedures related to revenue accounts with the objective of identifying unusual or unexpected relationships that may indicate risks of material misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting, such as, for example, fictitious sales or significant returns from customers that might indicate undisclosed side agreements.
Consideration of Other Information
59 When obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, the auditor shall consider whether other information obtained indicates risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
60 In addition to information obtained from applying analytical procedures, the auditor ordinarily considers other information obtained about the entity and its environment that may be helpful in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. The discussion among team members described in paragraphs 30-36 may provide information that is helpful in identifying such risks. In addition, information obtained from the auditor’s client acceptance and retention processes, and experience gained on other engagements performed for the entity, for example engagements to review interim financial information, may be relevant in the identification of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
Identification and Assessment of the Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud
61 When identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the financial report level, and at the assertion level for classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures, the auditor shall identify and assess the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Those assessed risks that could result in a material misstatement due to fraud are significant risks and accordingly, to the extent not already done so, the auditor shall evaluate the design of the entity’s related controls, including relevant control activities, and determine whether they have been implemented.
62 To assess the risks of material misstatement due to fraud the auditor uses professional judgement and ordinarily:
(a) identifies risks of fraud by considering the information obtained through performing risk assessment procedures and by considering the classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures in the financial report;
(b) relates the identified risks of fraud to what can go wrong at the assertion level; and
(c) considers the likely magnitude of the potential misstatement including the possibility that the risk might give rise to multiple misstatements and the likelihood of the risk occurring.
63 It is important for the auditor to obtain an understanding of the controls that management has designed and implemented to prevent and detect fraud because in designing and implementing such controls, management may make informed judgements on the nature and extent of the controls it chooses to implement, and the nature and extent of the risks it chooses to assume. The auditor may learn, for example, that management has consciously chosen to accept the risks associated with a lack of segregation of duties. This may often be the case in small entities where the owner provides day-to-day supervision of operations. Information from obtaining this understanding may also be useful in identifying fraud risk factors that may affect the auditor’s assessment of the risks that the financial report may contain material misstatement due to fraud.
Risks of Fraud in Revenue Recognition
64 Material misstatements due to fraudulent financial reporting often result from an overstatement of revenues (for example, through premature revenue recognition or recording fictitious revenues) or an understatement of revenues (for example, through improperly shifting revenues to a later period). Therefore, the auditor ordinarily presumes that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition and considers which types of revenue, revenue transactions or assertions may give rise to such risks. Those assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud related to revenue recognition are significant risks to be addressed in accordance with paragraphs 61 and 65. Appendix 3 includes examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risk of material misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting resulting from revenue recognition. If the auditor has not identified, in a particular circumstance, revenue recognition as a risk of material misstatement due to fraud, in accordance with paragraph 119 the auditor is required to document the reasons for that conclusion.
Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud
65 The auditor shall determine overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and shall design and perform further audit procedures whose nature, timing and extent are responsive to the assessed risks at the assertion level.
66 Under ASA 330, the auditor needs to perform substantive procedures that are specifically responsive to risks that are assessed as significant risks.
67 The auditor ordinarily responds to the risks of material misstatement due to fraud in the following ways:
A response that has an overall effect on how the audit is conducted, that is, increased professional scepticism and a response involving more general considerations apart from the specific procedures otherwise planned.
A response to identified risks at the assertion level involving the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to be performed.
A response to identified risks involving the performance of certain audit procedures to address the risks of material misstatement due to fraud involving management override of controls, given the unpredictable ways in which such override could occur.
68 The response to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud may affect the auditor’s professional scepticism in the following ways:
Increased sensitivity in the selection of the nature and extent of documentation to be examined in support of material transactions.
Increased recognition of the need to corroborate management explanations or representations concerning material matters.
69 The auditor may conclude that it would not be practicable to design audit procedures that sufficiently address the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. In such circumstances under paragraphs 94 and 111 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to consider the implications for the audit.
Overall Responses
70 In determining overall responses to address the risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level the auditor shall:
(a) consider the assignment and supervision of personnel;
(b) consider the accounting policies used by the entity; and
(c) incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures.
71 The knowledge, skill and ability of the individuals assigned significant engagement responsibilities are commensurate with the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement. For example, the auditor may respond to identified risks of material misstatement due to fraud by assigning additional individuals with specialised skill and knowledge, such as forensic and IT experts, or by assigning more experienced individuals to the engagement. In addition, the extent of supervision reflects the auditor’s assessment of risks of material misstatement due to fraud and the competencies of the engagement team members performing the work.
72 Under paragraph 70 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to consider management’s selection and application of significant accounting policies, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions. Ordinarily the auditor considers whether the selection and application of accounting policies may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management’s effort to manage earnings in order to deceive financial report users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
73 Individuals within the entity who are familiar with the audit procedures normally performed on engagements may be more able to conceal fraudulent financial reporting. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 70 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor is required to incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, extent and timing of audit procedures to be performed. This can be achieved by, for example, performing substantive procedures on selected account balances and assertions not otherwise tested due to their materiality or risk, adjusting the timing of audit procedures from that otherwise expected, using different sampling methods, and performing audit procedures at different locations or at locations on an unannounced basis.
Audit Procedures Responsive to Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud at the Assertion Level
74 The auditor’s responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level may include changing the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures in the following ways:
The nature of audit procedures to be performed may need to be changed to obtain audit evidence that is more reliable and relevant or to obtain additional corroborative information. This may affect both the type of audit procedures to be performed and their combination. Physical observation or inspection of certain assets may become more important or the auditor may choose to use computer-assisted audit techniques to gather more evidence about data contained in significant accounts or electronic transaction files. In addition, the auditor may design procedures to obtain additional corroborative information. For example, if the auditor identifies that management is under pressure to meet earnings expectations, there may be a related risk that management is inflating sales by entering into sales agreements that include terms that preclude revenue recognition or by invoicing sales before delivery. In these circumstances, the auditor may, for example, design external confirmations not only to confirm outstanding amounts, but also to confirm the details of the sales agreements, including date, any rights of return and delivery terms. In addition, the auditor might find it effective to supplement such external confirmations with enquiries of non-financial personnel in the entity regarding any changes in sales agreements and delivery terms.
The timing of substantive procedures may need to be modified. The auditor may conclude that performing substantive testing at or near the period end better addresses an assessed risk of material misstatement due to fraud. The auditor may conclude that, given the risks of intentional misstatement or manipulation, audit procedures to extend audit conclusions from an interim date to the period end would not be effective. In contrast, because an intentional misstatement, for example a misstatement involving improper revenue recognition, may have been initiated in an interim period, the auditor may elect to apply substantive procedures to transactions occurring earlier in or throughout the reporting period.
The extent of the procedures applied reflects the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. For example, increasing sample sizes or performing analytical procedures at a more detailed level may be appropriate. Also, computer-assisted audit techniques may enable more extensive testing of electronic transactions and account files. Such techniques can be used to select sample transactions from key electronic files, to sort transactions with specific characteristics, or to test an entire population instead of a sample.
75 If the auditor identifies a risk of material misstatement due to fraud that affects inventory quantities, examining the entity’s inventory records may help to identify locations or items that may require specific attention during or after the physical inventory count. Such a review may lead to a decision to observe inventory counts at certain locations on an unannounced basis or to conduct inventory counts at all locations on the same date.
76 The auditor may identify a risk of material misstatement due to fraud affecting a number of accounts and assertions, including asset valuation, estimates relating to specific transactions (such as acquisitions, restructurings, or disposals of a segment of the business), and other significant accrued liabilities (such as pension and other post-employment benefit obligations, or environmental remediation liabilities). The risk may also relate to significant changes in assumptions relating to recurring estimates. Information gathered through obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment may assist the auditor in evaluating the reasonableness of such management estimates and underlying judgements and assumptions. A retrospective review of similar management judgements and assumptions applied in prior periods may also provide insight about the reasonableness of judgements and assumptions supporting management estimates.
77 Examples of possible audit procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud are presented in Appendix 2 to this Auditing Standard. The appendix includes examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement resulting from both fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets.
Audit Procedures Responsive to Management Override of Controls
78 As noted in paragraph 22, management is in a unique position to perpetrate fraud because of management’s ability to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records and prepare a fraudulent financial report by overriding controls that otherwise appear to be operating effectively. While the level of risk of management override of controls will vary from entity to entity, the risk is nevertheless present in all entities and is a significant risk of material misstatement due to fraud. Accordingly, in addition to overall responses to address the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level, under paragraph 80 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to perform audit procedures to respond to the risk of management override of controls.
79 Paragraphs 80-86 set out the audit procedures that respond to risk of management override of controls. However, the auditor also ordinarily considers whether there are risks of management override of controls for which the auditor needs to perform procedures other than those specifically referred to in these paragraphs.
80 To respond to the risk of management override of controls, the auditor shall design and perform audit procedures to:
(a) test the appropriateness of journal entries recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in the preparation of a financial report;
(b) review accounting estimates for biases that could result in material misstatement due to fraud; and
(c) obtain an understanding of the business rationale of significant transactions that the auditor becomes aware of that are outside of the normal course of business for the entity, or that otherwise appear to be unusual given the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment.
Journal Entries and Other Adjustments
81 Material misstatements of the financial report due to fraud often involve the manipulation of the financial reporting process by recording inappropriate or unauthorised journal entries throughout the year or at period end, or making adjustments to amounts reported in the financial report that are not reflected in formal journal entries, such as through consolidating adjustments and reclassifications. In designing and performing audit procedures to test the appropriateness of journal entries recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in the preparation of the financial report the auditor ordinarily:
Obtains an understanding of the entity’s financial reporting process and the controls over journal entries and other adjustments.
Evaluates the design of the controls over journal entries and other adjustments and determines whether they have been implemented.
Makes enquiries of individuals involved in the financial reporting process about inappropriate or unusual activity relating to the processing of journal entries and other adjustments.
Determines the timing of the testing.
Identifies and selects journal entries and other adjustments for testing.
82 For the purposes of identifying and selecting journal entries and other adjustments for testing, and determining the appropriate method of examining the underlying support for the items selected, the auditor ordinarily considers the following:
The assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud – the presence of fraud risk factors and other information obtained during the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud may assist the auditor to identify specific classes of journal entries and other adjustments for testing.
Controls that have been implemented over journal entries and other adjustments – effective controls over the preparation and posting of journal entries and other adjustments may reduce the extent of substantive testing necessary, provided that the auditor has tested the operating effectiveness of the controls.
The entity’s financial reporting process and the nature of evidence that can be obtained – for many entities routine processing of transactions involves a combination of manual and automated steps and procedures. Similarly, the processing of journal entries and other adjustments may involve both manual and automated procedures and controls. When information technology is used in the financial reporting process, journal entries and other adjustments may exist only in electronic form.
The characteristics of fraudulent journal entries or other adjustments – inappropriate journal entries or other adjustments often have unique identifying characteristics. Such characteristics may include entries:
(a) made to unrelated, unusual, or seldom-used accounts;
(b) made by individuals who typically do not make journal entries;
(c) recorded at the end of the period or as post-closing entries that have little or no explanation or description;
(d) made either before or during the preparation of the financial report that do not have account numbers; or
(e) containing round numbers or consistent ending numbers.
The nature and complexity of the accounts – inappropriate journal entries or adjustments may be applied to accounts that
(a) contain transactions that are complex or unusual in nature;
(b) contain significant estimates and period-end adjustments;
(c) have been prone to misstatements in the past;
(d) have not been reconciled on a timely basis or contain unreconciled differences;
(e) contain inter-company transactions; or
(f) are otherwise associated with an identified risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
In audits of entities that have several locations or components, consideration is given to the need to select journal entries from multiple locations.
Journal entries or other adjustments processed outside the normal course of business – non standard journal entries may not be subject to the same level of internal control as those journal entries used on a recurring basis to record transactions such as monthly sales, purchases and cash disbursements.
83 The auditor uses professional judgement in determining the nature, timing and extent of testing of journal entries and other adjustments. Because fraudulent journal entries and other adjustments are often made at the end of a reporting period, the auditor ordinarily selects the journal entries and other adjustments made at that time. However, because material misstatements in the financial report due to fraud can occur throughout the period and may involve extensive efforts to conceal how the fraud is accomplished, the auditor ordinarily considers whether there is also a need to test journal entries and other adjustments throughout the period.
Accounting Estimates
84 In preparing a financial report, management is responsible for making a number of judgements or assumptions that affect significant accounting estimates and for monitoring the reasonableness of such estimates on an ongoing basis. Fraudulent financial reporting is often accomplished through intentional misstatement of accounting estimates. In reviewing accounting estimates for biases that could result in material misstatement due to fraud the auditor ordinarily:
Considers whether differences between estimates best supported by audit evidence and the estimates included in the financial report, even if they are individually reasonable, indicate a possible bias on the part of the entity’s management, in which case the auditor reconsiders the estimates taken as a whole.
Performs a retrospective review of management judgements and assumptions related to significant accounting estimates reflected in the financial report of the prior year. The objective of this review is to determine whether there is an indication of a possible bias on the part of management, and it is not intended to call into question the auditor’s professional judgements made in the prior year that were based on information available at the time.
85 If the auditor identifies a possible bias on the part of management in making accounting estimates, under paragraph 6 of this Auditing Standard the auditor needs to evaluate whether the circumstances producing such a bias represent a risk of material misstatement due to fraud. The auditor ordinarily considers whether, in making accounting estimates, management’s actions appear to understate or overstate all provisions or reserves in the same fashion so as to be designed either to smooth earnings over two or more accounting periods, or to achieve a designated earnings level in order to deceive financial report users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
Business Rationale for Significant Transactions
86 Under paragraph 80, the auditor needs to obtain an understanding of the business rationale for significant transactions that are outside the normal course of business for the entity, or that otherwise appear to be unusual given the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment and other information obtained during the audit. The purpose of obtaining this understanding is to consider whether the rationale (or the lack thereof) suggests that the transactions may have been entered into to engage in fraudulent financial reporting or to conceal misappropriation of assets. In gaining such an understanding the auditor ordinarily considers the following:
Whether the form of such transactions appears overly complex (for example, the transaction involves multiple entities within a consolidated group or multiple unrelated third parties).
Whether management has discussed the nature of and accounting for such transactions with those charged with governance of the entity, and whether there is adequate documentation.
Whether management is placing more emphasis on the need for a particular accounting treatment than on the underlying economics of the transaction.
Whether transactions that involve non-consolidated related parties, including special purpose entities, have been properly reviewed and approved by those charged with governance of the entity.
Whether the transactions involve previously unidentified related parties or parties that do not have the substance or the financial strength to support the transaction without assistance from the entity under audit.
Evaluation of Audit Evidence
87 Under ASA 330, the auditor, based on the audit procedures performed and the audit evidence obtained, needs to evaluate whether the assessments of the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level remain appropriate. This evaluation is primarily a qualitative matter based on the auditor’s judgement. Such an evaluation may provide further insight about the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and whether there is a need to perform additional or different audit procedures. As part of this evaluation, the auditor ordinarily considers whether there has been appropriate communication with other engagement team members throughout the audit regarding information or conditions indicative of risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
88 An audit of a financial report is a cumulative and iterative process. As the auditor performs planned audit procedures information may come to the auditor’s attention that differs significantly from the information on which the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud was based. For example, the auditor may become aware of discrepancies in accounting records or conflicting or missing evidence. Also, relationships between the auditor and management may become problematic or unusual. Appendix 3 to this Auditing Standard contains examples of circumstances that may indicate the possibility of fraud.
89 The auditor shall consider whether analytical procedures that are performed at or near the end of the audit when forming an overall conclusion as to whether the financial report as a whole is consistent with the auditor’s knowledge of the business indicate a previously unrecognised risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
90 Determining which particular trends and relationships may indicate a risk of material misstatement due to fraud may require professional judgement. Unusual relationships involving year-end revenue and income are particularly relevant. These might include, for example, uncharacteristically large amounts of income being reported in the last few weeks of the reporting period or unusual transactions; or income that is inconsistent with trends in cash flow from operations.
91 When the auditor identifies a misstatement, the auditor shall consider whether such a misstatement may be indicative of fraud and if there is such an indication, the auditor shall consider the implications of the misstatement in relation to other aspects of the audit, particularly the reliability of management representations.
92 The auditor cannot assume that an instance of fraud is an isolated occurrence. Also, the auditor ordinarily considers whether misstatements identified may be indicative of a higher risk of material misstatement due to fraud at a specific location. For example, numerous misstatements at a specific location, even though the cumulative effect is not material, may be indicative of a risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
93 If the auditor believes that a misstatement is or may be the result of fraud, but the effect of the misstatement is not material to the financial report, the auditor ordinarily evaluates the implications, especially those dealing with the organisational position of the individual(s) involved. For example, fraud involving a misappropriation of cash from a small petty cash fund normally would be of little significance to the auditor in assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud because both the manner of operating the fund and its size would tend to establish a limit on the amount of potential loss, and the custodianship of such funds normally is entrusted to a non-management employee. Conversely, if the matter involves higher-level management, even though the amount itself is not material to the financial report, it may be indicative of a more pervasive problem, for example, implications about the integrity of management. In such circumstances, the auditor ordinarily:
re-evaluates the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and its resulting impact on the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures to respond to the assessed risks;
reconsiders the reliability of evidence previously obtained since there may be doubts about the completeness and truthfulness of representations made and about the genuineness of accounting records and documentation; and
considers the possibility of collusion involving employees, management or third parties when reconsidering the reliability of evidence.
94 When the auditor confirms that, or is unable to conclude whether, the financial report is materially misstated as a result of fraud, the auditor shall consider the implications for the audit.
95 ASA 320 Materiality and Audit Adjustments, and ASA 700 The Auditor’s Report on a General Purpose Financial Report, provide guidance on the evaluation and disposition of misstatements and the effect on the auditor’s report.
Management Representations
96 The auditor shall endeavour to obtain written representations from management that:
(a) it acknowledges its responsibility for the design and implementation of internal control to prevent and detect fraud;
(b) it has disclosed to the auditor the results of its assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud;
(c) it has disclosed to the auditor its knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving:
(i) management;
(ii) employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
(iii) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial report; and
(d) it has disclosed to the auditor its knowledge of any allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the entity’s financial report communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.
97 Because of the nature of fraud and the difficulties encountered by auditors in detecting material misstatements in the financial report resulting from fraud, it is important that, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 96 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor is required to endeavour to obtain a written representation from management confirming that it has disclosed to the auditor the results of management’s assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud and its knowledge of actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity.
98 ASA 580 Management Representations, provides guidance on obtaining appropriate representations from management in the audit. In addition to acknowledging its responsibility for the financial report, it is important that, irrespective of the size of the entity, management acknowledges its responsibility for internal control designed and implemented to prevent and detect fraud. In the event management is unable to or refuses to provide a written representation, under ASA 580, the auditor needs to consider the implications of the refusal for the auditor’s report.
Communications With Management and Those Charged With Governance
99 If the auditor has identified a fraud or has obtained information that indicates that a fraud may exist, the auditor shall communicate these matters as soon as practicable to the appropriate level of management.
100 When, in accordance with paragraph 99 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor has obtained evidence that fraud exists or may exist, the auditor is required to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate level of management as soon as practicable. This is so even if the matter might be considered inconsequential (for example, a minor defalcation by an employee at a low level in the entity’s organisation). The determination of which level of management is the appropriate one is a matter of professional judgement and is affected by such factors as the likelihood of collusion and the nature and magnitude of the suspected fraud. Ordinarily, the appropriate level of management is at least one level above the persons who appear to be involved with the suspected fraud.
101 If the auditor has identified fraud involving:
(a) management;
(b) employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
(c) others where the fraud results in a material misstatement in the financial report,
the auditor shall communicate these matters to those charged with governance as soon as practicable.
102 Legislation may require the auditor or a member of the audit team to maintain the confidentiality of information disclosed to the auditor by a person regarding contraventions or possible contraventions of the law.[3] In such circumstances, the auditor or a member of the audit team may be prevented from communicating that information to management or those charged with governance in order to protect the identity of the person who has disclosed confidential information that alleges a breach of the law. Consequently, the auditor may need to consider the implications for the audit engagement.
103 The auditor’s communication with those charged with governance may be made orally or in writing. ASA 260 identifies factors the auditor ordinarily considers in determining whether to communicate orally or in writing. Due to the nature and sensitivity of fraud involving senior management, or fraud that results in a material misstatement in the financial report, under paragraph 101 of this Auditing Standard and ASA 260 the auditor needs to report such matters as soon as practicable and ordinarily considers whether it is also necessary to report such matters in writing. If the auditor suspects fraud involving management, under paragraphs 99 and 101 of this Auditing Standard, the auditor needs to communicate these suspicions to those charged with governance and also ordinarily discusses with them the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit.
104 If the integrity or honesty of management or those charged with governance is doubted, the auditor ordinarily considers seeking legal
advice to assist in the determination of the appropriate course of action.
105 At an early stage in the audit, the auditor ordinarily reaches an understanding with those charged with governance about the nature and extent of the auditor’s communications regarding fraud that the auditor becomes aware of involving employees other than management that does not result in a material misstatement.
106 The auditor shall make those charged with governance and management aware, as soon as practicable, and at the appropriate level of responsibility, of material weaknesses in the design or implementation of internal control to prevent and detect fraud which may have come to the auditor’s attention.
107 If the auditor identifies a risk of material misstatement of the financial report due to fraud, which management has either not controlled, or for which the relevant control is inadequate, or if in the auditor’s judgement there is a material weakness in management’s risk assessment process, under paragraph 106 of this Auditing Standard and ASA 260, the auditor needs to include such internal control deficiencies in the communication of audit matters of governance interest.
108 The auditor shall consider whether there are any other matters related to fraud to be discussed with those charged with governance of the entity.
109 Such matters may include for example:
Concerns about the nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessments of the controls in place to prevent and detect fraud and of the risk that the financial report may be misstated.
A failure by management to appropriately address identified material weaknesses in internal control.
A failure by management to appropriately respond to an identified fraud.
The auditor’s evaluation of the entity’s control environment, including questions regarding the competence and integrity of management.
Actions by management that may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting, such as management’s selection and application of accounting policies that may be indicative of management’s effort to manage earnings in order to deceive financial report users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
Concerns about the adequacy and completeness of the authorisation of transactions that appear to be outside the normal course of business.
Communications to Regulatory and Enforcement Authorities
110 The auditor’s professional duty to maintain the confidentiality of client information may preclude reporting fraud to a party outside the client entity. The auditor ordinarily considers obtaining legal advice to determine the appropriate course of action in such circumstances. In certain circumstances, the duty of confidentiality may be overridden by statute, the law or courts of law.[4] Where management and those charged with governance fail to take corrective action and there is no specific requirement to report the non-compliance to a third party, the auditor ordinarily seeks legal advice to determine whether the auditor’s duty of confidentiality can be overridden by disclosure of the information to the proper authority.[5]
Auditor Unable to Continue the Engagement
111 If, as a result of a misstatement resulting from fraud or suspected fraud, the auditor encounters exceptional circumstances that bring into question the auditor’s ability to continue performing the audit the auditor shall:
(a) consider the professional and legal responsibilities applicable in the circumstances, including whether there is a requirement for the auditor to report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities;
(b) where permitted, consider the possibility of withdrawing from the engagement; and
(c) if the auditor withdraws:
(i) discuss with the appropriate level of management and those charged with governance the auditor’s withdrawal from the engagement and the reasons for the withdrawal; and
(ii) consider whether there is a professional or legal requirement to report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities, the auditor’s withdrawal from the engagement and the reasons for the withdrawal.
112 Such exceptional circumstances can arise, for example, when:
The entity does not take the appropriate action regarding fraud that the auditor considers necessary in the circumstances, even when the fraud is not material to the financial report.
The auditor’s consideration of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and the results of audit tests indicate a significant risk of material and pervasive fraud.
The auditor has significant concern about the competence or integrity of management or those charged with governance.
113 Because of the variety of the circumstances that may arise, it is not possible to describe definitively when withdrawal from an engagement is appropriate. Factors that affect the auditor’s conclusion include the implications of the involvement of a member of management or of those charged with governance (which may affect the reliability of management representations) and the effects on the auditor of a continuing association with the entity.
114 The auditor has professional and legal responsibilities in such circumstances. For example, the auditor may be entitled to, or required to, make a statement or report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities. Given the exceptional nature of the circumstances and the need to consider the legal requirements, the auditor ordinarily considers seeking legal advice when deciding whether to withdraw from an engagement and in determining an appropriate course of action, including the possibility of reporting to shareholders, regulators or others.[6]
115 For an engagement under the Corporations Act 2001, the possibility of withdrawing from the engagement or resigning from the appointment as an auditor can only be made in accordance with the provisions of section 329 of the Corporations Act 2001, including obtaining consent to resign from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). For guidance on resignation of auditors under the Corporations Act 2001, see ASIC Policy Statement 26 “Resignation of Auditors”.
Documentation
116 The documentation of the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment and the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement required by ASA 315 shall include:
(a) the significant decisions reached during the discussion among the engagement team regarding the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud; and
(b) the identified and assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and at the assertion level.
117 The documentation of the auditor’s responses to the assessed risks of material misstatement required by ASA 330 shall include:
(a) the overall responses to the assessed risks of material misstatements due to fraud at the financial report level and the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures, and the linkage of those procedures with the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level; and
(b) the results of the audit procedures, including those designed to address the risk of management override of controls.
118 The auditor shall document communications about fraud made to management, those charged with governance, regulators and others.
119 When the auditor has concluded that the presumption that there is a risk of material misstatement due to fraud related to revenue recognition is not applicable in the circumstances of the engagement, the auditor shall document the reasons for that conclusion.
120 The extent to which these matters are documented is for the auditor to determine using professional judgement.
Conformity with International Standards on Auditing
121 Except as noted below, this Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 240 The Auditor's Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of the International Federation of Accountants. The main difference between this Auditing Standard and ISA 240 is:
This Auditing Standard includes explanatory guidance on the following matters not contained in ISA 240:
♦ Legislation may require the auditor to maintain the confidentiality of information disclosed to the auditor by a person regarding contraventions or possible contraventions of the law. In such circumstances, the auditor may be prevented from communicating that information to management or those charged with governance in order to protect the identity of the person who has disclosed confidential information that alleges a breach of the law. Consequently, the auditor may need to consider the implications for the audit engagement (paragraph 102). ISA 240 does not provide for exceptions on communicating on matters of fraud with those charged with governance.
♦ Guidance relating to circumstances pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001, when the auditor may not be permitted to withdraw from the engagement (paragraph 115). ISA 240 does not provide for exceptions where withdrawal from an engagement may not be permitted.
Compliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 240.